Cap & Trade...poll added

A place to share your views and make your case on any issues fit to discuss.

Moderators: rtb, kmax, SonomaCat

Is Cap & Trade the right way to address pollution?

Yes, we need to lead by example.
5
25%
No, changes need to be made but this will put the US at and unfair disadvantage.
8
40%
No, nothing needs to be done for pollution.
6
30%
Other.
1
5%
 
Total votes: 20

User avatar
AlphaGriz1
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 4:13 pm
Location: Dominating BN since 1997............

Re: Cap & Trade

Post by AlphaGriz1 » Mon May 11, 2009 9:42 am

Liberal code for, "cave in on doing what is right and do what is popular".

#-o


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
www.maroonblood.com
www.championshipsubdivision.com

Grizlaw
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3277
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:04 pm
Location: Queens, NY

Re: Cap & Trade

Post by Grizlaw » Mon May 11, 2009 9:42 am

Isn't this just another rendition of the old Tragedy of the Commons issue? I think we all agree that, collectively, mankind would benefit by decreasing pollution, but if one country bears all of the economic costs of the decrease, then the benefit to that one country will never outweigh the costs. The only way it will ever make sense for industrialized countries to decrease their emissions will be if all major countries agree to do so.

For those reasons, I think it's overly idealistic to say "we're the U.S.; we should be leading," or "China pollutes more than we do, so they should cut emissions first." Regardless of what any one country "should" do based on our personal sense of right and wrong, the economic incentives just aren't there.


I work as an attorney so that I can afford good scotch, which helps me to forget that I work as an attorney.

User avatar
tampa_griz
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 5467
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 1:37 pm
Location: St. Petersburg, FL

Re: Cap & Trade

Post by tampa_griz » Mon May 11, 2009 11:15 am

ChiOCat wrote:
AlphaGriz1 wrote:
tampa_griz wrote:
AlphaGriz1 wrote:If you get Asia and China to quit polluting 300 fold more than the US then and only then am I on board with "capping trade".

(because China isn't a part of "Asia")
Wow, didnt know that.
Not in school the day they taught sarcasm?



User avatar
tampa_griz
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 5467
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 1:37 pm
Location: St. Petersburg, FL

Re: Cap & Trade

Post by tampa_griz » Mon May 11, 2009 11:22 am

AlphaGriz1 wrote:I must have missed the continent of China while in public school.
Then how do you plan on getting China and Asia on board since they're mutually exclusive entities?



GrizinWashington
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7992
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 6:30 pm

Re: Cap & Trade

Post by GrizinWashington » Mon May 11, 2009 11:29 am

Regardless of what any one country "should" do based on our personal sense of right and wrong, the economic incentives just aren't there
There certainly were no economic incentives to end slavery, but I'm certainly glad we made the difficult decision to do that. There was no economic incentives to set aside land for public use, particularly National Parks, but I'm glad we made that decision. There was no economic incentive to prohibit companies from dumping their waste directly into rivers, streams, lakes and oceans, but I'm glad we made that decision.

100 years from now, our great grandchildren will be damn glad we made this one.


We're all here 'cause we ain't all there.

Grizlaw
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3277
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:04 pm
Location: Queens, NY

Re: Cap & Trade

Post by Grizlaw » Mon May 11, 2009 11:56 am

GrizinWashington wrote:There certainly were no economic incentives to end slavery, but I'm certainly glad we made the difficult decision to do that. There was no economic incentives to set aside land for public use, particularly National Parks, but I'm glad we made that decision. There was no economic incentive to prohibit companies from dumping their waste directly into rivers, streams, lakes and oceans, but I'm glad we made that decision.

100 years from now, our great grandchildren will be damn glad we made this one.

You're missing my point. I'm not saying we shouldn't reduce pollution; I'm saying we as a country can't just do it ourselves and trust that the rest of the world is going to follow us. It needs to be a global solution. If we impose restrictions only on ourselves (while China and other industrialized countries continue polluting), then the benefit to the planet will be marginal, and we will bear 100% of the economic costs. The same would be true if China were to impose restrictions on its companies, without some assurance that we will do the same.

What is needed is a global treaty (one that, unlike Kyoto, does not exempt one of the largest polluters from its terms).


I work as an attorney so that I can afford good scotch, which helps me to forget that I work as an attorney.

GrizinWashington
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7992
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 6:30 pm

Re: Cap & Trade

Post by GrizinWashington » Mon May 11, 2009 12:00 pm

Sorry I misunderstood, GL. Thanks for clarifying. And yes, I agree with you that it needs to be a global treaty/action.


We're all here 'cause we ain't all there.

User avatar
BobCatFan
2nd Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1297
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:28 pm
Contact:

Re: Cap & Trade

Post by BobCatFan » Mon May 11, 2009 2:55 pm

Please, someone prove to me that CO2 is a pollutant.

As far as I am concerned, CO2 is natural by-product of living and plants need co2 to live. It is part of the 02/CO@ chain of live. Tests in a West Virginia forest have proving that higher levels of c02 makes plants grow better.

The planet is heading into the next ice age as our orbit around the sun is near the peak for global warming and over the next 13,000 years, the earth will receive less energy from the sun and thus the earth will natural cool. Montana will once again be covered by thick glaciers. Where will we all live it this happens? Where will get our food supplies if 1/3 of the earth surface is covered by ice and the climate is too cool to grow crops. This is the real climate change danger. Not some stupid c02 gas release from us burning fossil fuels.



GrizinWashington
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7992
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 6:30 pm

Re: Cap & Trade

Post by GrizinWashington » Mon May 11, 2009 3:06 pm

You canNOT be serious in your claim that you fail to realize that CO2 is a pollutant. It's a toxin. It's difficult to get more "pollutant" than that.
Carbon dioxide is toxic to the heart and causes diminished contractile force
.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The reason you exhale is to expel CO2.


But in any event, your post ignores the many other toxins that Cap and Trade are meant to limit.


We're all here 'cause we ain't all there.

User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23951
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Re: Cap & Trade

Post by SonomaCat » Mon May 11, 2009 3:19 pm

BobCatFan wrote:Please, someone prove to me that CO2 is a pollutant.

As far as I am concerned, CO2 is natural by-product of living and plants need co2 to live. It is part of the 02/CO@ chain of live. Tests in a West Virginia forest have proving that higher levels of c02 makes plants grow better.

The planet is heading into the next ice age as our orbit around the sun is near the peak for global warming and over the next 13,000 years, the earth will receive less energy from the sun and thus the earth will natural cool. Montana will once again be covered by thick glaciers. Where will we all live it this happens? Where will get our food supplies if 1/3 of the earth surface is covered by ice and the climate is too cool to grow crops. This is the real climate change danger. Not some stupid c02 gas release from us burning fossil fuels.
Can you please provide us links to the peer-reviewed studies that support the theory that you state as fact above (heading into the next ice age, Montana covered by glaciers, etc.)?

Please also give us some background on the extent of your scientific background and research into these issues and the methodology you applied to reach the conclusion that human-caused climate change is bogus and that an impending ice age is certain.



User avatar
nevadacat
2nd Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1225
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 11:25 am
Location: Las Vegas

Re: Cap & Trade

Post by nevadacat » Mon May 11, 2009 3:20 pm

GrizinWashington wrote:You canNOT be serious in your claim that you fail to realize that CO2 is a pollutant. It's a toxin. It's difficult to get more "pollutant" than that.
Carbon dioxide is toxic to the heart and causes diminished contractile force
.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The reason you exhale is to expel CO2.
By that logic, oxygen is a pollutant. Under certain conditions it can be toxic.


...for today we raise, the BLUE and GOLD to wave victorious!... GO CATS GO!

Grizlaw
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3277
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:04 pm
Location: Queens, NY

Re: Cap & Trade

Post by Grizlaw » Mon May 11, 2009 3:55 pm

nevadacat wrote: By that logic, oxygen is a pollutant. Under certain conditions it can be toxic.
And if human-caused processes were spewing oxygen into the atmosphere in amounts that were sufficient to have harmful effects, I have no doubt many would consider it to be a pollutant.


I work as an attorney so that I can afford good scotch, which helps me to forget that I work as an attorney.

User avatar
AlphaGriz1
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 4:13 pm
Location: Dominating BN since 1997............

Re: Cap & Trade

Post by AlphaGriz1 » Mon May 11, 2009 4:14 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
BobCatFan wrote:Please, someone prove to me that CO2 is a pollutant.

As far as I am concerned, CO2 is natural by-product of living and plants need co2 to live. It is part of the 02/CO@ chain of live. Tests in a West Virginia forest have proving that higher levels of c02 makes plants grow better.

The planet is heading into the next ice age as our orbit around the sun is near the peak for global warming and over the next 13,000 years, the earth will receive less energy from the sun and thus the earth will natural cool. Montana will once again be covered by thick glaciers. Where will we all live it this happens? Where will get our food supplies if 1/3 of the earth surface is covered by ice and the climate is too cool to grow crops. This is the real climate change danger. Not some stupid c02 gas release from us burning fossil fuels.
Can you please provide us links to the peer-reviewed studies that support the theory that you state as fact above (heading into the next ice age, Montana covered by glaciers, etc.)?

Please also give us some background on the extent of your scientific background and research into these issues and the methodology you applied to reach the conclusion that human-caused climate change is bogus and that an impending ice age is certain.
I will right after you prove this isn't the case with documentation/links to the above question you posed.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
www.maroonblood.com
www.championshipsubdivision.com

User avatar
tampa_griz
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 5467
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 1:37 pm
Location: St. Petersburg, FL

Re: Cap & Trade

Post by tampa_griz » Mon May 11, 2009 4:20 pm

AlphaGriz1 wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
BobCatFan wrote:Please, someone prove to me that CO2 is a pollutant.

As far as I am concerned, CO2 is natural by-product of living and plants need co2 to live. It is part of the 02/CO@ chain of live. Tests in a West Virginia forest have proving that higher levels of c02 makes plants grow better.

The planet is heading into the next ice age as our orbit around the sun is near the peak for global warming and over the next 13,000 years, the earth will receive less energy from the sun and thus the earth will natural cool. Montana will once again be covered by thick glaciers. Where will we all live it this happens? Where will get our food supplies if 1/3 of the earth surface is covered by ice and the climate is too cool to grow crops. This is the real climate change danger. Not some stupid c02 gas release from us burning fossil fuels.
Can you please provide us links to the peer-reviewed studies that support the theory that you state as fact above (heading into the next ice age, Montana covered by glaciers, etc.)?

Please also give us some background on the extent of your scientific background and research into these issues and the methodology you applied to reach the conclusion that human-caused climate change is bogus and that an impending ice age is certain.
I will right after you prove this isn't the case with documentation/links to the above question you posed.
From the Environmental Protection Agency in a report dated last month regarding CO2:
EPA’s proposed endangerment finding is based on rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific analysis of six gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride – that have been the subject of intensive analysis by scientists around the world. The science clearly shows that concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels as a result of human emissions, and these high levels are very likely the cause of the increase in average temperatures and other changes in our climate.

The scientific analysis also confirms that climate change impacts human health in several ways. Findings from a recent EPA study titled “Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on Ground-Level Ozone,” for example, suggest that climate change may lead to higher concentrations of ground-level ozone, a harmful pollutant. Additional impacts of climate change include, but are not limited to:
increased drought;
more heavy downpours and flooding;
more frequent and intense heat waves and wildfires;
greater sea level rise;
more intense storms; and
harm to water resources, agriculture, wildlife and ecosystems.
And regarding Montana's glaciers, Daniel Fagre, U.S. Geological Survey ecologist at Glacier National Park, said two months ago:
It's an oft-repeated statistic that the glaciers at Montana's Glacier National Park will disappear by the year 2030.

But Daniel Fagre, a U.S. Geological Survey ecologist who works at Glacier, says the park's namesakes will be gone about ten years ahead of schedule, endangering the region's plants and animals.

The 2030 date, he said, was based on a 2003 USGS study, along with 1992 temperature predictions by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

"Temperature rise in our area was twice as great as what we put into the [1992] model," Fagre said. "What we've been saying now is 2020."
It's even worse than the experts originally thought.



User avatar
tampa_griz
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 5467
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 1:37 pm
Location: St. Petersburg, FL

Re: Cap & Trade

Post by tampa_griz » Mon May 11, 2009 4:35 pm

I also read the other day that the Himalayan glaciers are melting at an alarming rate. Those glaciers are the source of water for billions of people. If they go, they're going to have to migrate somewhere. Then we'll have a whole new set of brown people to worry about.



GrizinWashington
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7992
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 6:30 pm

Re: Cap & Trade

Post by GrizinWashington » Mon May 11, 2009 5:21 pm

Someone please explain this to me:

The radical evangelical right says that homosexually is clearly wrong because the Bible states in one spot that men should not lie down with men. So how can those same people not want to protect the earth when Genesis alone has no-less than three very clear passages that God intended man to be the earth's caretaker, and that it is a sin to damage it:
"Then the LORD God placed the man in the Garden of Eden to Cultivate it and Guard it" ("to tend and care for it" - The Living Bible2) - Genesis 2:15
your descendants will live all over the earth and bring it under their control. I am putting you in charge of the fish, the birds, and all the wild animals.'" - Genesis 1:27,28
"All the animals, birds, and fish will live in fear of you. They are all placed under your power".
Genesis 9:2

Anyone care to take a shot at explaining that disconnect?


We're all here 'cause we ain't all there.

User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23951
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Re: Cap & Trade

Post by SonomaCat » Mon May 11, 2009 5:26 pm

There is a actually a growing number of evanagelicals who are turning friendly to the enviromental movement based on exactly that rationale.

I believe Pat Robertson is a strong proponent of policies aimed at curtailing human-influenced climate change.



User avatar
BobCatFan
2nd Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1297
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:28 pm
Contact:

Re: Cap & Trade

Post by BobCatFan » Mon May 11, 2009 5:45 pm

The Weizmann team found, to its surprise, that the Yatir forest is a substantial “sink” (CO2-absorbing site): its absorbing efficiency is similar to that of many of its counterparts in more fertile lands. These results were unexpected since forests in dry regions are considered to develop very slowly, if at all, and thus are not expected to soak up much carbon dioxide (the more rapidly the forest develops the more carbon dioxide it needs, since carbon dioxide drives the production of sugars). However, the Yatir forest is growing at a relatively quick pace, and is even expanding further into the desert.

Why would a forest grow so well on arid land, countering all expectations (“It wouldn’t have even been planted there had scientists been consulted,” says Yakir)? The answer, the team suggests, might be found in the way plants address one of their eternal dilemmas. Plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, which leads to the production of sugars. But to obtain it, they must open pores in their leaves and consequently lose large quantities of water to evaporation. The plant must decide which it needs more: water or carbon dioxide. Yakir suggests that the 30 percent increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution eases the plant’s dilemma. Under such conditions, the plant doesn’t have to fully open the pores for carbon dioxide to seep in – a relatively small opening is sufficient. Consequently, less water escapes the plant’s pores. This efficient water preservation technique keeps moisture in the ground, allowing forests to grow in areas that previously were too dry.

The scientists hope the study will help identify new arable lands and counter desertification trends in vulnerable regions.

The findings could provide insights into the “missing carbon dioxide” riddle, uncovering an unexpected type of sink. Deciphering the atmospheric carbon dioxide riddle is critical since the rise in the concentrations of this greenhouse gas is suspected of driving global warming and its resulting climate changes. Tracking down carbon dioxide sinks could help scientists better assess how long such absorption might continue and lead to the development of efficient methods to take up carbon dioxide.

Also, it will become possible to genetically engineer crop plants to grow faster and with less irrigation in a high CO2 environment. It seems reasonable to expect that crop plants will be genetically engineered to be optimized for higher CO2 environments. Among the benefits of such optimization would be a reduced need for irrigation and more rapid plant growth. As a consequence of this it would not be at all surprising if 30 or 40 years from now the agricultural industry becomes a major source of political support for the continued burning of fossil fuels.
By Randall Parker at 2003 May 09 11:39 AM Engineering Environmental


We know that we who reside in the United States emit about 6.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year," said Taro Takahashi, Doherty Senior Research Scientist, associate director of Lamont-Doherty, Columbia's earth sciences campus in Palisades, N.Y., and an author of the report. "As an air mass travels from west to east, it should receive carbon dioxide and the East Coast concentration of CO2 should be higher than on the West Coast.

"But observations tell us otherwise. The mean atmospheric CO2 concentration on the East Coast has been observed to be lower than that over the Pacific coast. This means that more CO2 is taken up by land ecosystems over the United States than is released by industrial activities


We examined how CO2 enrichment (+200 mu L CO2/L air differential) affects forest succession through growth and survivorship of tree seedlings, as part of the Duke Forest free-air CO2 enrichment ( FACE) experiment in North Carolina, USA. We planted 2352 seedlings of 14 species in the low light forest understory and determined effects of elevated CO2 on individual plant growth, survival, and total sample biomass accumulation, an integrator of plant growth and survivorship over time, for six years. We used a hierarchical Bayes framework to accommodate the uncertainty associated with the availability of light and the variability in growth among individual plants. We found that most species did not exhibit strong responses to CO2. Ulmus alata (+21%), Quercus alba (+9.5%), and nitrogen-fixing Robinia pseudoacacia (+230%) exhibited greater mean annual relative growth rates under elevated CO2 than under ambient conditions. The effects of CO2 were small relative to variability within populations; however, some species grew better under low light conditions when exposed to elevated CO2 than they did under ambient conditions.


Contact: Monte Basgall Basgall@duke.edu 919-681-8057
Duke University Medical Center

REPORT: HIGH CARBON DIOXIDE BOOSTS DUKE FOREST GROWTH BY 25 PERCENT

DURHAM, N.C. -- Duke University forest plots bathed in the higher
carbon-dioxide atmosphere expected by the year 2050 experienced
a 25 percent growth increase over the first two years of a
continuing experiment, scientists from the University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign and Duke reported Thursday.
In 1997, the first complete year of the replicated study, the
overall growth rate of the dominant pine trees and underlying
hardwoods, shrubs and vines increased 16 percent in the extra-CO2
plots when compared to the control plots, the authors reported
in Science. In 1998, that increase swelled to 25 percent, an
addition that to some degree reflected the inclusion of fine root
growth that was not measured in 1997.

Both DeLucia and Schlesinger noted that those results occurred
during two growing seasons that were affected by droughts.

"The growth rates declined in the control plots as a result of
the drought," Schlesinger said, while the high-CO2 plots "were
able to make up for the drought," he added. The Duke botanist
speculated that plants growing at higher carbon dioxide levels
may be able to better conserve water. Separate studies have shown
that plant stomata, leaf pores that regulate water release, do
not open as widely in elevated CO2.


This should help support my believes that co2 is actually helping the environment. I need to run to baseball practice.



GrizinWashington
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7992
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 6:30 pm

Re: Cap & Trade

Post by GrizinWashington » Mon May 11, 2009 5:49 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:There is a actually a growing number of evanagelicals who are turning friendly to the enviromental movement based on exactly that rationale.

I believe Pat Robertson is a strong proponent of policies aimed at curtailing human-influenced climate change.
Not enough, apparently; from "GOPUSA Eagle", a right-wing GOP e-mail newsletter:
Lately, MSNBC's Chris Matthews has been on a childish tear, taunting Republicans to admit their belief in the biblical account of the Creation. Someone ought to ask this paragon of smug self-satisfaction why, if he's so brilliant, he unquestioningly echoes the demagogic hyperbole of global warming fanatics hellbent on destroying the economic system responsible for producing unprecedented prosperity in the advanced industrialized world.


We're all here 'cause we ain't all there.

User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23951
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Re: Cap & Trade

Post by SonomaCat » Mon May 11, 2009 6:01 pm

Bobcatfan: Your huge cut and paste post (links are generally preferred) does show the rather non-controversial idea that increased CO2 can increase the growth of plants. I'm pretty sure nobody will refute that assertion.

That doesn't speak to the big question, however, which is whether increased CO2 actually adversely impacts our climate (in other words, are the negatives greater than the positives)?

Also, do you have links to peer-reviewed articles that support your previous claim about the upcoming ice ages?



Post Reply